Talk:Aggie Bonfire and Muscle protein: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:25, 11 October 2008

Redirect to:

Muscle

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+#REDIRECT [[muscle]]
-{{skiptotoctalk}}
-{{talkheader}}
-{{ArticleHistory
-|action1=FAC
-|action1date=04:55, 3 September 2007
-|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aggie Bonfire
-|action1result=promoted
-|action1oldid=154948487
-|currentstatus=FA
-|maindate=December 22, 2007
-}}
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1={{WikiProject Texas|class=FA|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
-{{WikiProject Texas A&M|class=FA|importance=high|nested=yes}}
-{{WikiProject College football|class=FA|importance=low|nested=yes}}}}
-{| class='toccolours' align='right'
-|
-[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]
-|
-* '''[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]''' <br><small>Creation – 2007-12-21</small>
-|}
-==t.u.==
-I've seen a few people change the references to "t.u." to "U.T.", but that is not correct in this context.  Yes, the official abbreviation for the [[University of Texas at Austin]] is U.T.  At Texas A&M, however, the rival school is referred to in a derogatory manner as "t.u.", because Aggies think UT is "just another texas university" and not "THE university of texas".  The choice was made to include the derogatory term in this article because a) it is used in the motto for Bonfire, and b) the University of Texas newspaper has even made note of the term without appearing offended.  The choice of when to use t.u. and when to use UT or spell out the name was made very carefully based on the context of the paragraphs and is the result of a consenus of page editors and [[WP:FA]] reviewers.  If you disagree with the usage, please discuss here before changing the article.  [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 03:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-:* Congratulations to everyone ! Now it's a featured article.--[[User:NAHID|'''NAH''']][[User talk:NAHID|''ID'']] 06:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-:*: Actually it's been featured for almost four months. But you're right, it's featured on the [[Main Page]] today only! [[User:Bigbluefish|BigBlueFish]] ([[User talk:Bigbluefish|talk]]) 15:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-== one of the best articles I've seen in ages ==
-congrats to the editors. [[Special:Contributions/207.241.238.233|207.241.238.233]] ([[User talk:207.241.238.233|talk]]) 07:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-:Featured article for good reason... Great! [[User:Qevlarr|Qevlarr]] ([[User talk:Qevlarr|talk]]) 09:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-:Very thorough and well designed article, even if the event it reports barely counts as encyclopedic material. A fire to highlight rivalry, how childish. --[[User:Rubenerd|rubenerd]] ([[User talk:Rubenerd|talk]]) 12:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-::Some people think wars are childish. Some people think others are childish. However these things happen and WP tries to ensure every notable person, event, and thing we can verify using reliable sources is covered. While somethings are more notable than others, the others sometimes are well documented. And congrats to the FA writers here. At least this one did not generate as much "interest" as [[FTAB]]. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">[[User:sp|<font color="#000">spryde</font>]] | [[User_talk:sp|<font color="#000">talk</font>]]</small> 12:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-==10th Texas Court of Appeals ruling==
-Should we include [http://chronicle.com/news/article/4576/court-says-texas-am-officials-are-not-immune-in-bonfire-lawsuits this information] in the article, in the related paragraph in the controversy section? Is it relevant? [[User:BlueAg09|BlueAg09]] ([[User talk:BlueAg09|Talk]]) 00:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-:Here is [http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/671138.html another source]. [[User:BlueAg09|BlueAg09]] ([[User talk:BlueAg09|Talk]]) 00:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-::I think that definitely deserves at least a sentence in the article.  It likely means more lawsuits will be coming. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 13:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-==John Comstock==
-The source referenced saying that Comstock returned to TAMU and graduated, but the article merely states that Comstock returned to TAMU and says nothing about him graduating.  Without another source to verify that information; the wiki should be altered.
-[[User:Megyn|Megyn]] ([[User talk:Megyn|talk]]) 22:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
-:Megyn, usually comments are put at the bottom of the page, not the top.
-:You are absolutely correct and, given that it has been only 4 years and the article states he was a junior in 2004, but restricted to taking 5-6 hours per semester, it is very likely he may not have yet graduated. I have reworded it accordingly.
-:That said, [[WP:BEBOLD|Be bold and make changes you feel are necessary!]] if we need to discuss them, that's what the talk page is for! :-) <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:BQZip01|<font color="white">'''—&nbsp;''BQZip01''&nbsp;—'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:BQZip01|talk]]</sup> 03:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
-== strange linking ==
-So what is it exactly in [[1999]], or even more strangely, the anniversary article [[18 November]] (wrongly formatted for a US-related article) that makes these valuable links with anything more than a sea of facts related only by their occurrence in the same 12-month period or on the same day each year, respectively? I'm keen to know. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-:1999: [[1999#November]]
-:November 18: [[18 November]] (see 1999)
-:As for the date formatting, [[WP:MOSNUM]] has been under so much flux lately, if you can show me where it shouldn't be in that format, I'd be happy to change it...but let's wait until the dust settles. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:BQZip01|<font color="white">'''—&nbsp;''BQZip01''&nbsp;—'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:BQZip01|talk]]</sup> 03:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-::MOSNUM hasn't at all been in flux about date ''autoformatting'' (I presume you meant). Deprecation has been quite clear since August and is widely accepted. If you cite the linked 18 November (again, non-US format?) as being useful as a link, I think you're mistaking the mechanics. Autoformatting wasn't designed to link, and the 18 November page is akin to a "what happened on this day" diversionary, general interest section in a newspaper or WP's main page. It's unsuitable in a serious article, where it dilutes high-value links. I don't understand why you've section-linked to November 1999 here, but not ''in'' the article. Did you mean to change it in the article? But even then, when we interrupt our reading to go there, it's circular: we're simply told that "November 18 - The Aggie Bonfire collapses in College Station, TX, killing 12." Haven't we already been told that in the article? This is not only a low-value link; it's likely to irritate serious readers unless the ''other'' events listed in that month have some relevance and are not stated ''within'' the article on the topic. There seems no logic at all to this. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 04:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-:::According to [[WP:DATE]], the non-U.S. format used in the article is acceptable as long as all dates use it. That said, linking of dates is deprecated and I see no advantage to preserving any date links in the article. They add nothing. They are not high-quality links. →[[User:Wordbuilder|Wordbuilder]] ([[User talk:Wordbuilder|talk]]) 04:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::"Dates in article body text should all have the same format." and "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.". [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 04:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-:::::That's a suggestion, not a rule. But, I'm not opposed to it being changed. I've always thought it looked odd. →[[User:Wordbuilder|Wordbuilder]] ([[User talk:Wordbuilder|talk]]) 04:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::::And this is why we had date formats at the discretion of the user, not the article.
-::::::The dates are linked because they were important events that occurred on that date/year. I find it to be useful to see what else happened on that date/year when reading an article. There is no specific "U.S." format. As an example, the military uses the way I do while some banks use the other way. Either way is acceptable. Why not make some sort of function that allows you to have dates in whichever format ''YOU'' desire but without linking? <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:BQZip01|<font color="white">'''—&nbsp;''BQZip01''&nbsp;—'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:BQZip01|talk]]</sup> 06:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-Why? Because other American editors may become very upset about it. For me, it's no big deal, and I'd prefer everything to be in dmy format, but the politics of it are that we have to have rules for this binary system or there will be edit wars. I also find the managing of the variations in a mature, orderly fashion one of the most satisfying things about WP. The rules for [[WP:ENGVAR]], which is also, more or less, a binary system, work extremely well.
-On your other point, you seem to be confusing autoformatting (which is deprecated) with linking. "The dates are linked because they were important events that occurred on that date/year. I find it to be useful to see what else happened on that date/year when reading an article." These are not good reasons to link a solitary year. Please see [[Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#What_generally_should_be_linked|this style-guide rule]]; the onus is on ''you'' to justify why they significantly add to the reader's (not your) understanding of the topic. You may like to go on fishing trips wandering through a branched tree of links, but the community has been evolving towards a more selective approach to linking, given that each link adds to the sea of blue. The most damaging aspect is that it weakens the focus on the high-value links that you'd like the readers to follow. I'm not going to debate this endlessly, since it's old news; all I ask you do to is to observe WP changing around you. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 07:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-Ah, I've just noticed that it's a featured article; you have no choice in the matter, since they are bound to follow the style guides. Please change it, or I will within a day. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 07:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-:Tony is right. The guidelines say:
-:* ''...use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day...
-:* ''Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic.
-:* ''The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated.
-:Given a choice, I would accept the dmy format throughout Wikipedia but I don't have a choice. The style guide was specifically created to reduce choice in order to increase harmony. Constraining choice is a specific function of a style guide. Wikipedia claims:
-:* ''Featured content represents the best that Wikipedia has to offer.
-:Featured Articles need to be compatible with the Manual of Style. I hope that helps. It is an interesting article and people have done good work. [[User:Lightmouse|Lightmouse]] ([[User talk:Lightmouse|talk]]) 10:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-::#[[WP:ENGVAR]] says nothing about dates
-::#I am not saying the dates are linked for purposes of autoformatting (you'll notice I didn't change any other dates). I'm saying they are linked for purposes of deepening readers' understanding of a topic (in this case it is a significant event in 1999. Other news-making events occurred that year and this provides context)
-::#Please don't cherrypick your quotes:
-::#*"Articles on topics with '''strong ties''' to a particular English-speaking country '''should generally''' use the more common date format for that nation."
-::#*"In certain subject areas '''the customary format may differ from the usual national one'': for example, articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field."
-::#:Texas A&M is indeed a University (and a University system) within the U.S., but it also has extensions of the main campus in Qatar and Italy. Their fleet of naval research vessels would be the 4th largest Navy in the world, if it were a Navy. It also has a significant international population at the school. Their own style guidelines within the University state that the dmy format is preferred.
-::#My point on autoformatting was not to justify my changes, but to point out new flaws in the "system".
-::<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:BQZip01|<font color="white">'''—&nbsp;''BQZip01''&nbsp;—'''</font>]]</span>&nbsp;<sup>[[User_talk:BQZip01|talk]]</sup> 15:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-Perhaps I didn't make it sufficiently clear that engvar was by analogy as another binary system that needs rules—quite tight ones. You've convinced me in your argument about the institution's preferences; please consider putting an editorial not at the top to that effect, or you'll have trouble later, I'm sure. Please specify some of these other events that, once extracted from the sea of factoids at [[1999]], may have relevance and are unsuitable for inclusion in the focused article itself. I can see none, aside from the circular one I pointed out (MOSLINK recommends against them, I'm pretty sure). Can you explain why a list of what happened on some date in November every year since the year dot has remote relevance? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 15:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-::I'd be more convinced of the institution's preference on using DMY if it was consistent across related articles. However, [[Texas A&M University]] (another featured article) uses MDY. I think the same format should be used here. →[[User:Wordbuilder|Wordbuilder]] ([[User talk:Wordbuilder|talk]]) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)